los angeles 2024

[FYI]

Lmfao, So-cheesy my FAV thus far! 

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I think this is one of the best assessments I've come across regarding the 2024 and 2028 races, and the chances and implications of an unlikely dual awarding:

The question of the moment in Summer Games host selection

I agree with the sentiments here.  This sounds like a lot of what we've been discussing.  And from the standpoint of the IOC, the question (which I'm sure they are in fact considering) is do they hedge their bets and award 2028 now, even though that would be an admission their organization has plans.  Or do they roll the dice and see who they can get for 2028, which may or may not include the LA/Paris loser.  I'm inclined to think they'll go with the latter, just because it wouldn't seem like their style to cancel a bid process.  What fun would that be for them.. or for us!  They probably should award both now, but that would require the IOC to do something smart, which is not normally what they do either.  

[alphamale86]

3 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I think this is one of the best assessments I've come across regarding the 2024 and 2028 races, and the chances and implications of an unlikely dual awarding:

The question of the moment in Summer Games host selection

 

Wow! How the 2024 race has changed over these last 2 years. For the most part we were all excited about this cycle due to the plethora of strong possible Candidates. Rome the early front runner for 2020 was back in the mix after bowing out of the previous cycle, Hamburg beat Berlin to be Germany's city of choice. Paris coming into the mix for the centennial. The USA doing extensive ground work with 35 cities to narrow down to Boston. and whispers from Toronto and Budapest. Then one by one IOC tragedy befell one city after another, to leave us simply with 3 choices. 

I know, long winded but I say all of that to say 2024 looked rosey as too. It was supposed to be the uptick from the 2022 Winter Race and the 2020 Summer bid. I'm sorry but I don't think the IOC can afford to keep saying "Next cycle will be better" I agree with the assessment of the article and I can't predict what they will do but my advice would be to piss some people off now by awarding LA and Paris the Games of 24 and 28 and let the 11 years heal the wounds of whomever feels slighted.

The IOC needs to figure itself out. It needs time to really think about it's place in society and in the changing face of geopolitics. Yes it would be an admission of weakness but truth is ignoring the fact makes you look even worse. You'll just continue to get really bad press that boils over into an almost FIFA like downfall.

Personally I don't think France or the USA will come back for 2028 if they were to lose. Times are changing in both countries. The right wing movements are really taking hold. I agree LA shows a stronger chance of coming back, more due to the fact that as of now the money being spent on infrastruction isn't really being marketed as for the Olympics but for everyday use so people aren't really associating cost with the Olympics. In addition to that we here are really excited about the improvements. I just don't think the USOC will take losing 3 times well. The IOC will also have a problem if the USOC decides to focus on the 2026 winter race instead. No word has been sounded yet on a city but folks have been waiting to see what happens with LA24 first, I am sure, before the chatter about 2026 heats up.

As for the possible 2028 contenders, I just feel like it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who you start off with anymore. It's who makes it to the end and more variables affect the race now than in previous cycles when a list of 9 had to be whittled down to 5. So I say cut your losses now and award the games to both cities, when you have two of, quite frankly, the most capable cities you could possibly have to bid in any cycle of the games, than risk neither coming back and Brisbane and Melbourne deciding at the last minute not to bid for 2028 Toronto again getting cold feet and Sochi being the saving grace of your Organization after you publicly humiliated them on the international stage. 

I think the real question is who should get 2024 first and who gets 2028? I know you may think I am biased but I truly think LA should get it first in a case like this. with much of the venues already in existence. Give Paris more time, to construct.  

[FYI]

Paris doesn't need more time to "construct", though, since as L.A., most of their venues are also in place. The only big ticket item that they need to build is the Olympic Village, which wouldn't take 11 years to build anyway.

And as a matter of fact, that is a sense of urgency for the Paris 2024 bid bcuz there's no guarantee that the land proposed for the OV now would necessarily still be available for a 2028 bid. And considering how expensive Paris real estate is, I doubt that the organizing committee would be able to hold on to it for that long otherwise.

If anyone needs more time to construct, even though those infrastructure projects aren't "directly" tied to their bid, is L.A. No need to "rush" things & spend MORE money than necessary on round-the-clock construction to get those things done in time for 2024, when they can more comfortably, & at their own pace, be completed for 2028 instead.

[Quaker2001]

Both Paris and LA are currently planning on delivering for 2024.  Both are undoubtedly capable of doing so.  For either of them to change the timetable to 2028 probably makes some things a little easier and also adds some challenges.  So I don't think it's a matter of who gets helped more by waiting the extra 4 years.  The primary concern is 2024.  A very secondary concern - maybe - would be the implications for 2028 if they were going to award both.

[baron-pierreIV]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sochi 2030?  More like So-cheesy!

 

Should be Socheats . . .

[Quaker2001]

6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Should be Socheats . . .

That's even better!  Love it

[Sir Rols]

4 hours ago, FYI said:

It might look like that now, but didn't 2024 look that rosey, too, only four years ago?

So what's changed in "rosiness"? They've told a couple of forecast potentials like Doha and Toronto that they might be wise to sit it out, lost two nice but less-than-solid and never rated as favourite bids in Rome and Hamburg and lost a never-highly-fancied contender in Boston to see it replaced by a very-highly-fancied LA. Leaving them with a choice that includes at least two options so good that their dilemma appears to be it's so rosy it'd be a shame that one of them is inevitably gonna lose out. It's anything but the dire choice they had when the 2022 field unravelled. 

I honestly think them changing the bid process mid-stream, for however laudable the reason, is highly unlikely and ultimately unwise for a host of other factors I and some of the authors followed and quoted here have said. Sure it's a risk they may not get another Paris/LA calibre contender in the next cycle, but I doubt they'd be bereft.

And, of course, no-one is really privy to what is going on in the back chatter between the IOC and the Paris and LA bid committees right now. All we have to go on is the public stance those respective bids are indicating. And even if we allow or assume they're not as 2024-or-nothing-committed as they're saying in their public statements,, what we could probably glean is they're both telling the IOC "we're all for it - as long as we go first". For all that would be desirable about locking in both, the two are pretty clear in saying that's 2024 that they want more.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

47 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

For all that would be desirable about locking in both, the two are pretty clear in saying that's 2024 that they want more.

Well, of course they both would say that before the 2024 vote has even been cast. What else would you expect them so say at this point? But hindsight is always very clear, isn't it, when everything is all said & done. I bet come September, though, whoever the 2024 loser is would be thinking then, "damn having 2028 locked in right now sounds pretty sweet! Consolation prize or not. Too bad we 'ruled it out' beforehand".

 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Should be Socheats . . .

Brilliant, Baron! 

[Sir Rols]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, of course they both would say that before the 2024 vote has even been cast. What else would you expect them so say at this point? But hindsight is always very clear, isn't it, when everything is all said & done. I bet come September, though, whoever the 2024 loser is would be thinking then, "damn having 2028 locked in right now sounds pretty sweet! Consolation prize or not. Too bad we 'ruled it out' beforehand".

 

The thing is though, it's all about whether it's wise to scrap due process mid stream to suit some near term goal that suddenly presents itself. It's all very well to say its alright to do so, who cares if we piss off the Hungarians or Russians - we don't approve of their politics anyway - or some Australian taxpayers - they just have to suck it and accept it - if we get Paris and LA lined up. Or similarly, another old precedent I've brought up before - Doha getting shafted for their proposed scheduling time windows host the games. Only to be told that it would be okay to scrap that window if melbourne or whoever down south bid for the games outside the prescribed time window because its okay to piss off some arabs if it advantages someone we find more acceptable. It's setting a dangerous precedence. It's saying it's okay to scrap due process when it advantages someone we approve of and only pisses off people we don't like anyway. But we scream blue murder when the shoe'ss on the other foot - like FIFA changing their rules only to have it helping Qatar and screwing the US and Oz.

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

So what's changed in "rosiness"? They've told a couple of forecast potentials like Doha and Toronto that they might be wise to sit it out, lost two nice but less-than-solid and never rated as favourite bids in Rome and Hamburg and lost a never-highly-fancied contender in Boston to see it replaced by a very-highly-fancied LA. Leaving them with a choice that includes at least two options so good that their dilemma appears to be it's so rosy it'd be a shame that one of them is inevitably gonna lose out. It's anything but the dire choice they had when the 2022 field unravelled. 

I honestly think them changing the bid process mid-stream, for however laudable the reason, is highly unlikely and ultimately unwise for a host of other factors I and some of the authors followed and quoted here have said. Sure it's a risk they may not get another Paris/LA calibre contender in the next cycle, but I doubt they'd be bereft.

And, of course, no-one is really privy to what is going on in the back chatter between the IOC and the Paris and LA bid committees right now. All we have to go on is the public stance those respective bids are indicating. And even if we allow or assume they're not as 2024-or-nothing-committed as they're saying in their public statements,, what we could probably glean is they're both telling the IOC "we're all for it - as long as we go first". For all that would be desirable about locking in both, the two are pretty clear in saying that's 2024 that they want more.

I'm largely with FYI on this one.  That's what they're saying now, as well they should.  What happens after the vote and someone didn't win 2024?  How do they feel about 2028 then?  How does it look for the 2024 runner up to bid for 2028 having potentially called it a lesser prize?  To be fair, that's not entirely the cities' fault they might be in such a position.  As you noted, they're bidding for 2024 and only for 2024.  Definitely not fair for them to have what they're bidding for being changed on them (if that's what the IOC decides) and for the reasons you stated, it's probably not going to happen.

Here's a hypothetical though.  Let's say Paris and LA host, in some order, 2024 and 2028.  Will history care what order they hosted in?  Or will it be a relatively unimportant footnote that one of them beat the other for 2024?  Both cities should remain quiet on anything related to 2028.  If the IOC changes the process, then address it then.  Until then though, there's little to be gained by bringing it up.  Unless 1 or both cities has definitively decided they're in this for 2024 and absolutely won't return for 2028.  Because if you lose 2024 and have referred to 2028 as something of a lesser prize, how's that going to resonate with voters if you're bidding for those Olympics?

[FYI]

14 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

 The thing is though, it's all about whether it's wise to scrap due process mid stream to suit some near term goal that suddenly presents itself. It's all very well to say its alright to do so, who cares if we piss off the Hungarians or Russians - we don't approve of their politics anyway - or some Australian taxpayers - they just have to suck it and accept it - if we get Paris and LA lined up. 

How many times does that happen out in the real world, though. Why would the IOC be any different in that aspect. Why should the IOC care about Russia? It's not like Russia cares about pissing off the IOC, as we've seen of late. Im not saying that the IOC will take this double-award step. But I also don't believe that it would somehow be this irreperable action if they did go forward with it. And considering what could be at stake, I'd say that it would be more than a 'near-term goal'.

14 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Or similarly, another old precedent I've brought up before - Doha getting shafted for their proposed scheduling time windows host the games. Only to be told that it would be okay to scrap that window if melbourne or whoever down south bid for the games outside the prescribed time window because its okay to piss off some arabs if it advantages someone we find more acceptable. 

Yeah, I've seen you (& others) mention this before. But is that really setting a "precedent", though? I mean, seriously, how many other VIABLE candidates 'down south' are there, besides Melbourne, that could only host outside of the preferred time window? Not very many really. Both Durban & Brisbane can host IN the preferred window, so there's no precedent there. And considering how the Olympics have been south of the equator less times than anywhere else, that element is being blown a bit outta proportion, TBH. 

14 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

It's setting a dangerous precedence. It's saying it's okay to scrap due process when it advantages someone we approve of and only pisses off people we don't like anyway. But we scream blue murder when the shoe'ss on the other foot - like FIFA changing their rules only to have it helping Qatar and screwing the US and Oz.

Oh come on now. The FIFA thing was pure BRIBERY, plain & simple, & members were actually arrested by U.S. authorities from their Swiss dwellings for the whole 2022 debacle. Sorry, but the two aren't even comparable, IMHO.

[Sir Rols]

44 minutes ago, FYI said:

Oh come on now. The FIFA thing was pure BRIBERY, plain & simple, & members were actually arrested by U.S. authorities from their Swiss dwellings for the whole 2022 debacle. Sorry, but the two aren't even comparable, IMHO.

Yeah, it was bribery, and vote swapping and dealing that came about through an extraordinary circumstance brought on by Sepp Blatter changing the FIFA process and rules at whim mid-stream. And remember, the idea of awarding both of those cups was seen as a decent proposition at the time - a way for both Europe and somewhere else to get the tournament without voting the normal manner getting in  the way. A good intentioned move that has spectacularly blown back at FIFA's faces. You really don't see them suggesting that any more.

You can get into all the minutae about 2024 and 28 and Paris and LA and who would take precedence and who's playing poker face and whatever you want - that's not what I'm debating. I don't really care or have much of any new insight or view. It's all supposition and speculation and wishing based on preferences anyway (BTW - no surprise it seems most Paris supporters, including me, would want Paris to go first and vice-versa - it seems that even an unlikely dual-awarding doesn't change that). I'm arguing the sheer unlikelihood that dual-awarding will happen, and the major pitfalls if it did. And just aghast that so many people seem that it's a cut-and-dried decision taken already and riding spectacularly roughshod over any qualms expressed about its risks.

It's startling to see the notion expressed that it's okay to change the rules if it benefits the US, or France or Australia and that pissing off some Russians, or Hungarians or Arabs doesn't matter - nobody cares for them and they're just collateral damage anyway. Bending rules to benefit "acceptable people like us" is just as much corruption and collusion and unfairness as what has fuelled people's outrage that Qatar won a WC unfairly while taking advantage of FIFA rules changed mid-stream.  They're all members of the Olympic family, they're all supposed to be operating under the same rules. I have as much distaste for authoritarian regimes as anyone - maybe more than most - but I do firmly support that the IOC can't (and don't) limit who they consider acceptable hosts based on the preferred method of government of one part of the world. It always fills me with dismay that when it comes to authoritarian regimes, we want to trade with them, have them make our consumer goods, want them to help on common goals like fighting terrorism, want them to travel to us and spend tourist dollars in our homes, want them to compete at our sports events (as long as they're clean - but then again, surely we can't and don't want our own athletes there if they're not clean either), but then get all queasy that they might actually be allowed to host things as well.

44 minutes ago, FYI said:

 

Yeah, I've seen you (& others) mention this before. But is that really setting a "precedent", though? I mean, seriously, how many other VIABLE candidates 'down south' are there, besides Melbourne, that could only host outside of the preferred time window? Not very many really. Both Durban & Brisbane can host IN the preferred window, so there's no precedent there. And considering how the Olympics have been south of the equator less times than anywhere else, that element is being blown a bit outta proportion, TBH. 

 

Okay, I will nibble at this one, despite the fact we're in an LA thread (sorry). One, it was even more than precedent - it was the IOC who specifically and clearly said that the Summer games must be held within the July-September time window. No if or buts. Now, that's fair enough, we know the reasons - not just climate, but also sports scheduling, broadcast scheduling etc. I accept those. What I do find fault with is when people come out with "well, if Melbourne decided to go outside that frame, it'd be okay and overlooked then - Aussie are like us and acceptable (unlike arabs)". If its an explicitly stated IOC rule, then a huge section of the world is quite entitled to be incredibly pissed off if it was tossed out the window at some time because its inconvenient for an acceptably liberal mainly white city. Yeah, it's only a few likely candidates that are affected and like I said, I can live with it. Like the winter games, not everyone can have them. But among the affected are Melboure (otherwise a major attractive would be future host), Buenos Aires (a perennial favourite of those who dream about tangoing back to South America) and Cape Town and Jo-burg, which as you know a great many people consider more winnable, worthy and attractive hosts from South Africa than Durban. It's not the rule itself I'm pissed off with (so much), its the attitude it can be tossed away if its to the benefit of people or cities we like.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

 Why should the IOC care about Russia?

You best ask that question to those who believe that Bach, if he's not a sleeper agent, is at least considered a paid-for and dependable ally, along with Trump, in Putin's cache of assets.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

It's not like Russia cares about pissing off the IOC, as we've seen of late. Im not saying that the IOC will take this double-award step.

And it's not like Bach cares about pissing off the rest of the world to appease Russia, as we saw lately in his stance over banning the Russian team at Rio.

[JesseSaenz]

LA City Leaders are now worried that Olympic members may want to have the opening/closing ceremonies at the new Inglewood Stadium.

The voted to get a power of veto in the matter.

Not looking good for them.

[FYI]

9 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

But among the affected are Melboure (otherwise a major attractive would be future host), Buenos Aires (a perennial favourite of those who dream about tangoing back to South America) and Cape Town and Jo-burg, which as you know a great many people consider more winnable, worthy and attractive hosts from South Africa than Durban. 

Like I mentioned before, there's Brisbane (or even Sydney again) if Melbourne's dates are deemed too unworkable. Buenos Aires I'll give you, but then again, it'll be quite awhile before the Olympics head back to South America anyway.

As far as Cape Town or Johannesburg, I wouldn't put them in the same category of cities where it has to be South Africa's premier cities to make the bid "winnable". Being a viable African bid would put it in that category anyway. And you know as well as I, that pragmatically speaking, Durban is the city that makes the most sense for South Africa. Not only do they have a lot of the venues already in place like the main stadium, but they're also in the preferred Games-time window which is precisely the issue here.

And considering how South Africa is tipping-toeing with when they're finally going to take a dip again in the Olympic bidding pool, I don't see them changing tactics by then going with a city that would require a lot more work to be done. And as far as attractiveness goes, I wouldn't consider Johannesburg to fall too much in that category. If many people were complaining about Rio's rough edges, then they'd really be complaining about 'Jo-burg'. Not to mention that Johannesburg would also have another little issue to deal with of the high altitude.

9 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I have as much distaste for authoritarian regimes as anyone - maybe more than most - but I do firmly support that the IOC can't (and don't) limit who they consider acceptable hosts based on the preferred method of government of one part of the world. It always fills me with dismay that when it comes to authoritarian regimes, we want to trade with them, have them make our consumer goods, want them to help on common goals like fighting terrorism, want them to travel to us and spend tourist dollars in our homes, want them to compete at our sports events (as long as they're clean - but then again, surely we can't and don't want our own athletes there if they're not clean either), but then get all queasy that they might actually be allowed to host things as well.

Last time I checked, though, we've had authoritatian regimes that we do all those other things with, that you describe, host. Moscow 1980, Sarajevo 1984, Beijing 2008, Sochi 2014 & soon Beijing 2022 (which you yourself have taken quite issue with than most on here). But at the same time, the IOC also shouldn't bow to every fanciful notion of minnow dictatorships (i.e. Qatar, Azerbaijan, & even Hungary to an extent) simply bcuz they want some Olympic Games notch on their dictatorial belt. Otherwise, lets also give Iran & North Korea a Games while we're at it. 

9 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

It's not the rule itself I'm pissed off with (so much), its the attitude it can be tossed away if its to the benefit of people or cities we like.

Well, that's the irony here, isn't it. Cuz the IOC is the one that made up the "rule". But then again, if they could be honest to begin with, & specifically outline why certain bids won't be considered (i.e. bcuz they go against the Olympic Charter, etc), then there wouldn't be that kind of an attitude against the rules in the first place. 

[Rob2012]

10 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

LA City Leaders are now worried that Olympic members may want to have the opening/closing ceremonies at the new Inglewood Stadium.

The voted to get a power of veto in the matter.

Not looking good for them.

Who voted for what? Sorry if I'm being dumb but didn't understand this post.

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

Who voted for what? Sorry if I'm being dumb but didn't understand this post.

It doesn't make any sense.  And like it was already reported earlier.  I don't know why it gets a repeat posting??

[Usa2024olympics]

https://mobile.twitter.com/la2024/status/821039685564649474

This is the video released by La 2024 on twitter. It features the main ceremonies being held at the Inglewood stadium while a "celebration of the 1932 and 1984 games" occurs. Not sure what that really means in terms of performance but it looks like the main event is at Inglewood. 

[phandrosis]

I kind of had a stigma of football stadiums hosting the ceremonies since for some reason holding them in the Maracana seems a little lackluster in ambiance compared to previous ceremonies. But then again Sochi was in a football stadium, so I think that having a roof that is too low and a seating grade that is too shallow for me takes away from the inherent magnificance of the ceremonies themselves. Since Inglewood seems like it will be plenty tall, if LA wins I think this will be a great place to host the ceremonies.

[baron-pierreIV]

33 minutes ago, Usa2024olympics said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/la2024/status/821039685564649474

This is the video released by La 2024 on twitter. It features the main ceremonies being held at the Inglewood stadium while a "celebration of the 1932 and 1984 games" occurs. Not sure what that really means in terms of performance but it looks like the main event is at Inglewood. 

 

Interesting.  But that's just a concept.  Doesn't really mean anything, other than LA organizers would prefer to have the Ceremonies at the new venue.  But this will have a whole decade to be played out.  Very, very early days.  

[Quaker2001]

37 minutes ago, Usa2024olympics said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/la2024/status/821039685564649474

This is the video released by La 2024 on twitter. It features the main ceremonies being held at the Inglewood stadium while a "celebration of the 1932 and 1984 games" occurs. Not sure what that really means in terms of performance but it looks like the main event is at Inglewood. 

Like baron said, it's just a concept.  Wouldn't read much into that.  I do find it amusing they're already referring to City of Champions stadium as an iconic venue, even though it's not even built yet.  No idea how they would be able to use both for the ceremonies though, other than maybe have the last leg of the torch run go from the Coliseum to CoC

[ejaycat]

According to this, it seems to be the official plan:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Angeles-2024-Opening-Ceremony-Olympics-410851885.html

Coliseum and CoC stadium for opening ceremonies (with CoC stadium being the main stadium for the OC) and then the Coliseum for "official" closing ceremonies, with CoC stadium hosting spectators for live viewing and entertainment.

This LA Times article says that the opening ceremonies will begin at the Coliseum and end at the CoC stadium; when the cauldron is lit in Inglewood, the Coliseum cauldron will simultaneously light up and then serve as the official cauldron of the Games, which makes sense to me if the official closing ceremony will be held at the Coliseum---they would douse that flame when it ends.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-la2024-olympic-ceremonies-20170116-story.html

Edited January 16, 2017 by ejaycat

[baron-pierreIV]

2 -stadium Ceremonies concept first floated in Chicago 2016.  Shot down (by IOC); proved untenable.  

LA does not even have a Ceremonies team in place 7, let alone 11 years away from 2028.  2-stadium concept NOT going to happen.  And running the torch from the Coliseum to CofC very old-fashioned idea.